Author |
Replies: 16 / Views: 454 |
Valued Member
United States
103 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community

United States
53720 Posts |
Obverse pic does not throw enough light on the surfaces to evaluate.
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4388 Posts |
With the current pics I'm at 64
|
Valued Member
United States
103 Posts |
|
Valued Member
United States
103 Posts |
|
Valued Member
United States
103 Posts |
|
Pillar of the Community

United States
1772 Posts |
|
Bedrock of the Community

United States
53720 Posts |
|
Valued Member
United States
482 Posts |
looks like MS-64 to me too
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2724 Posts |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9508 Posts |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9666 Posts |
for strike this one is typical for the date where you see a fairly bold and sharp strike. luster based on these photos appears to be broken on both side so this one is in the AVG- for luster. surface preservation is not bad with more rub and light abrasions than scratches or marks. eye appeal is middle of the road. taking all that into consideration I put it somewhere between MS63 and MS64. I think with the amount of missing luster I would lean more towards the 63
|
Valued Member
United States
471 Posts |
Good rims...clean fields with minimal chatter. I'll stretch her to MS65 Nice coin! smat
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7522 Posts |
MS64 not as much luster from the photos as I would like to see on an 81-S but then it could just be poor photos?
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1982, EAC Member #6202, NBS Member, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440
|
Valued Member
United States
103 Posts |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4167 Posts |
Undergraded, I think. This one's at least 64 possibly better.
|
Replies: 16 / Views: 454 |
|